Loving the Neighbour and the Resident Alien in Leviticus ...Exodus 20-23 and a younger Leviticus 19...
Transcript of Loving the Neighbour and the Resident Alien in Leviticus ...Exodus 20-23 and a younger Leviticus 19...
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 571
Loving the Neighbour and the Resident Alien in
Leviticus 19 as Ethical Redefinition of Holiness1
HENDRIK L. BOSMAN (STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY)
ABSTRACT
“Loving the neighbour” is generally accepted as fundamental to Judeo-
Christian theological ethics. However, few reflect on the implications of
extending “loving the neighbour” (Lev 19:18) to “loving the resident
alien/foreigner” (Lev 19:33-34) within the context of the Holiness Code
(Lev 17-26). This contribution argues that “holiness” is redefined in
Leviticus 19 by combining the instructions related to cultic rituals
(aimed at the priests) in Leviticus 1-16 with the theological-ethical
issues (aimed at all Israelites) in Leviticus 17-26; thereby moving from
“ascribed holiness” (granted by divine decree to cultic officials) to
“achieved holiness” (available to all Israel through obedience) in the
post-exilic period.
KEYWORDS: loving the neighbour, loving the resident alien, Leviticus
19, holiness.
A INTRODUCTION
From the start, any investigation of “love your neighbour as yourself” must be
cautioned by way of Richard Elliot Friedman’s comments2: “One of the most
famous lines from the Bible. Impressive. Fascinating. Inspiring. Capable of a
thousand interpretations and raising a thousand questions.”
At first some comments are made on Leviticus 19 as closely related to the
so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26) and taking into consideration the trend in
recent scholarship to interpret it within a postexilic context. Then the instructions
* Submitted: 26/08/2018; peer-reviewed: 18/10/2018; accepted: 19/11/2018.
Hendrik L. Bosman, “Loving the Neighbour and the Resident Alien in Leviticus 19 as
Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” Old Testament Essays 31 no. 3 (2018): 571-590.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2018/v31n3a10. 1 This contribution is in appreciation of the scholarship of Willie Wessels who was
one of the first South African biblical scholars to employ ideological criticism in terms
of prophetic texts and who did not shy away from its theological-ethical implications.
My reinterpretation of holiness in this contribution attempts to resonate with his
scholarship. 2 Richard E. Friedman, Exodus. (New York: HarperOne, 2017), 199. He continues
by pointing out that there are numerous claims that “neighbour” refers to “one’s fellow
Jews or Israelites”, i.e. “a member of one’s own group” – an assumption he strongly
disagrees with.
572 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
to “love the neighbour” (Lev. 17:18) and “love the resident alien” (Lev. 19:33-
34) are discussed within their possible literary and historical contexts; after
which it is reflected on how the underlying concept of “holiness” is probably
influenced by the love commands in question. The methodological approach of
this discussion can be characterised as a diachronically informed synchronic
discussion of Leviticus 19, leaning towards situating it in a post-exilic context,
possibly before the construction of the Second Temple (i.e. leading up to Ezra –
Nehemiah).
B BRIEF COMMENTS ON LEVITICUS 19
Ever since August Klostermann suggested that Leviticus 17-26 be called “Das
Heiligkeitsgesetz”, Leviticus 19 has been considered by the scholarly
community to be part of the instructional section of the Pentateuch and several
subsequent studies have focused on the legal dimension of chapter 19 as
instructions that form part of a codex or collection of legal instructions.3 In
similar vein Samuel Driver (1891:43-48) identified a link between an older
Exodus 20-23 and a younger Leviticus 19 as collections of diverse religious and
ethical instructions.4 In his influential commentary on Leviticus, Martin Noth
described Leviticus 19 as part of a legal codex that is made up of diverging
instructions applicable to daily life.5 More recently Andreas Ruwe also paid
special attention to the different types of instruction found in Leviticus and made
a distinction between apodictic (chapters 11-18, 26-27) and casuistic (chapters
5-10, 20-25) laws.6
Jewish scholars have made influential contributions to the interpretation
of the Holiness Code and the book of Leviticus, indicative of the importance
attached to this book in Judaism. Baruch Levine argued for a close link between
the Ten Commandments and Leviticus 19. Despite the diversity amongst the
instructions collected in chapter 19, he is of the opinion that the theme of holiness
provides cohesion within the chapter and resonates with the expression “a
kingdom of priests in Exodus 19:6”.7 In his extensive commentary Jacob
Milgrom made an important observation that the Holiness Code changes the
emphasis in Leviticus 1-16 on ritual or cultic impurity to ethical uncleanness in
3 August Klostermann, “Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs,”
Zeitschrift für die gesammte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 38/3 (1877) 416. 4 Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the literature of the Old Testament 2 ed.
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 43-48. 5 Martin Noth, Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus. ATD. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966), 109-110. 6 Andreas Ruwe, “Heiligkeitsgesetz” und “Priesterschrift”. Literaturgeschichtliche
und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2. FAT 26 (Tübingen:
Mohr & Siebeck, 1999), 187-220. 7 Baruch Levine, Leviticus. JPS. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989),
124-125.
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 573
chapters 17-27. According to Milgrom Leviticus 19 not only forms the centre of
chapters 18-20, but also of the book of Leviticus and the Pentateuch as a whole.8
Within the context of the so-called Holiness Code Jay Sklar noted that
chapters 18 to 20 form a chiasm, because chapters 18 and 20 address similar
issues. Where chapter 19 is focused on what “holy practices” Israel should be
doing, chapters 18 and 20 are concerned with what they should avoid.9
At first glance Leviticus 19 seems to address some diverging and
disparate topics that do not allow for easy classification; but once note has been
taken of the frequent use of the expression “I am the Lord (your God)”, this
chapter can be subdivided into 16 paragraphs10 and three sections.11 “Loving the
neighbour” (Lev. 19:18) accordingly forms part of verses 11 to 18 focused on
“good neighbourliness”, while “loving the resident alien/stranger” (Lev. 19:34)
forms part of “miscellaneous duties”.12 An important rhetorical device is the
echoing of commands in different sections: loving the neighbour and the resident
alien in verses 18 and 34; the fear of God motivates treating the weak fairly and
honouring the old in verses 14 and 32.13 An emerging scholarly consensus was
eventually formulated by Lloyd Bailey when he identified the following
subsections in Leviticus 19: a) fourteen sections ending with either “I am the
Lord” or “I am the Lord your God”; b) the chapter begins (vv. 1-2) and ends (v.
37) with calls and exhortations for holiness to form an inclusio.14
Besides the use of fixed expressions as indicators of the possible
structuring of the theological-ethical argumentation in chapter 19, Erhard
8 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17 – 22. AB. (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 212-245. 9 Jay Sklar, Leviticus. TOTC 3 (Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2014), 241. 10 Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. FAT II/25. (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 460-461 identified sixteen paragraphs or sections following on
the introduction to the divine speech in vv. 1-2a: 2b; 3; 4; 5-10; 11-12; 13-14; 15-16;
17-18; 19-25; 26-28; 29-30; 31; 32; 33-34; 35-36; 37. 11 According to Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus. NICOT (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979), 264 the first section in Lev 19:2b-10 consists of four paragraphs
“each concluding with the motive clause ‘I am the Lord your God’, while in the next
section (19:11-18) there are also four paragraphs, but this time ending with ‘I am the
Lord’, reaching a climax in 19:18).” The concluding section (19:19-37) begins and ends
with “Keep my rules” in verses 19 and 37, and make use of both motive clauses (“I am
the Lord” and “I am the Lord your God”). 12 Wenham, Leviticus, 263. 13 Wenham, Leviticus, 264. 14 Lloyd R. Bailey, Leviticus – Numbers. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentaries.
(Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2005), 227.
574 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
Gerstenberger advanced the interesting argument that it is also important to take
note of what instructions are formulated in the singular and what in the plural15:
vv. 9-10 on the harvest (singular);
vv. 11-12 on the behaviour towards the neighbour and God (plural);
vv. 13-14 on social behaviour (singular);
vv. 15-16 consist of legal proceedings (singular);
vv. 17-18 on behaviour within the community (singular);
v. 19 has a taboo against mixing (singular);
vv. 26-28 on religious behaviour (plural);
v. 29 prohibits prostitution (singular);
v. 31 contains rules for religious behaviour (plural);
v. 32 demands respect (singular);
vv. 33-34 on strangers or resident aliens (the first prohibition is plural,
while the second commandment is singular);
vv. 35-36 concern honesty in commerce (plural).
The singular instructions seemed to be focused in vv. 9-18 and address
“an individual male within the framework of his clan or immediate
community”16. Although there is some similarity between the singular and plural
instructions in chapter 19, one can identify a different life context in vv. 11-12,
26-28, 30-31 since it seem to presuppose “assembled listeners” and not
individual instructions within the context of the (extended) family.17 John
Rogerson also takes specific note of the use of the second person singular and
the second person plural, in close connection with the use of apodictic (no
exceptions or conditions are mentioned) and casuistic (specific context or
circumstances are pointed out) instructions. The second person singular
instructions are presumed to be related to issues concerning social justice, while
15 Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Leviticus. A Commentary. OTL. (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox, 1996), 26-264. 16 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 262. 17 Gerstenberger. Leviticus, 262 is very specific when he identifies the audience of
the plural priestly instructions as being “the Jewish religious community during the
Persian period”.
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 575
the second person plural instructions resemble seven of the Ten
Commandments.18
With the exception of the so-called Kaufman School, the dating of
Leviticus 19 in recent scholarship has oscillated between exile and post-exile19.
While Ruwe opted for an exilic dating due to the need to redefine holiness
outside of Israel in the Diaspora20, Henk Jagersma considered Leviticus 19 to be
a summary of the most important ideas in the Old Testament in the time during
and after the exile to enhance and maintain identity after the demise of the Judean
monarchy: a) the prophetic tradition in 19:13-18; b) the priestly and cultic
traditions in 19:9, 19, 23-31, 33-36 and 3721. Leviticus 19 has even been depicted
by Michael Rooker as “the highest development of ethics in the Old Testament”,
which might be somewhat of an overstatement, but it at least can be taken into
consideration as to “what it meant for Israel to be a holy nation” – as described
in Exodus 19:6.22
Although many scholars in the past disputed the literary coherence of
Leviticus 19, some detected a “manifest similarity of some laws with the
Decalogue” and thus recent research has attempted to identify a “comprehensive
structure in this chapter” corresponding with the Ten Commandments, even
though no consensus has been reached on this point either23. Scholars like
Rogerson consider it probable that Leviticus 19 “contains an expanded version”
of the Ten Commandments, that “it is made up of a combination of at least two
originally separate collections of commandments” and that “it is an attempt to
redefine the meaning of holiness24”. Rogerson goes as far to identify social
justice as an important concern in chapter 19: a) vv. 9-10 require the owner of a
field not to harvest the edges and “to leave some produce for the poor and the
sojourner” etc.; b) v. 13 protects the hired day labourer; c) according to v. 14
18 John W. Rogerson, “Leviticus 19 and the meaning of Holiness.” In Leviticus in
Practice, (ed. John W. Rogerson, Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2014), 48-53. It is also
possible to argue that the instructions in the plural are older and the instructions in the
singular represent the exilic and postexilic focus on individual responsibility as opposed
to older corporate responsibility. 19 Like Milgrom, Leviticus, 2000, Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The
Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995) denied that the
Holiness Code made use of Deuteronomic material and that although the so-called
Holiness redaction was younger than Priestly source material both are situated before
the Babylonian Exile – circa 8th Century B.C.E. 20 Ruwe, “Heiligkeitsgesetz”, 187-220. 21 Henk Jagersma, Leviticus 19. (Assen: van Gorcum, 1972), 9-11 & 133-144. 22 Michael F. Rooker, Leviticus, NAC 3A. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000),
250. 23 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 460. 24 Rogerson, “Leviticus 19”, 43.
576 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
there is a prohibition on cursing the deaf or causing the blind to stumble; d) v.
15 enjoins “impartiality in justice”; e) v. 18 prohibits the taking of vengeance.25
In a major commentary on Leviticus Thomas Hieke points out that
Leviticus 19 is, in many ways, a peculiar (“einzigartiges”) chapter that
established itself as central to the Torah due to subsequent rabbinical
interpretation. Despite the obvious fact that it contains an extensive collection of
diverging social and religious instructions, cohesion is created by the consistent
interconnectedness of cult and ethics (“das Kultische und das Ethische [sind]
untrennbar miteinander verknüpft”) and by the repeated call to be “holy”
(“Aufruf zur Heiligkeit dient als Überschrift”)26. The interconnectedness of
cultic practice and ethics must not be understood as a linear progression from
cult to ethics, since cultic practice also co-existed with the ethical emphasis in
the time after the exile. Esias Meyer develops this argument by Hieke when he
points out that the Holiness Code was aimed at different Jewish faith
communities: “both people living in the land with access to the cult and those
living in the diaspora with no cult in sight.27”
C ‘LOVING THE NEIGHBOUR’ IN LEVITICUS 19:18
Before sharpening the focus on 19:18, one must take note that in verses 13–18
both negative and positive instructions are directed to the neighbour (rēaʻ) do
not defraud or rob your neighbour (v. 13) and do not endanger your neighbour’s
life (v. 16). Juxtaposed to the negative formulations, two positive points are then
emphasised28: i) To rebuke your neighbour when sin was committed in verse 17.
ii) To love your neighbour as yourself in verse 18.
As pointed out by James Watts Leviticus 19:18 has been one of the most
influential verses, not only in the book of Leviticus, but possibly in the whole of
the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament because both New Testament and Rabbinic
literature cite it as foundational for all biblical law. Leviticus 19:18 “provides a
religious basis for principled (deontological) approaches to ethics” and in
25 Rogerson, “Leviticus 19”, 43-54. The related instructions on resident aliens or
foreigners in vv. 33-34 will be discussed later on. 26 Thomas Hieke, Levitikus 17-26. HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 702-703. In
this regard Bailey, Leviticus, 25 draws attention to the fact that the refrain-like
motivations, “I am the Lord” and “I am the Lord your God”, are with one exception,
only to be found in Leviticus 18-26 and this “suggests that these chapters have a
separate origin”; and in similar vein the admonition “You shall be holy”, with also one
exception, is “found only in chapter 19 and following”. 27 Esias Meyer, “The Reinterpretation of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19 and the
Centrality of the Cult”, SJOT 30:2 (2016), 214. 28 Sklar, Leviticus, 247.
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 577
addition “it provides the rationale for setting aside or reinterpreting many of the
Pentateuch’s other laws and regulations…”29
Against the background of the research on Hebrew prepositions by Ernst
Jenni30, John Rogerson points out that the verb ʼahāb / “to love” is not followed
by the direct object in both vv. 18 and 34, but the indirect object indicated by the
preposition l`, meaning “you shall show love to” or more actively “act
generously towards”31. Thus the phrase “as yourself” in both vv. 18 and 34 can
best be understood as “who is like yourself”. Stephen Sherwood (2002:77)
concurs with Abraham Malamat (1990:50-51) that the unusual construction
ʼahāb l ͤ (instead of the more usual ʼahāb `et) can best be translated as “to be of
use to” and in view of the three other occurrences (1 Kgs. 5:1, 15; 2 Chr. 18:28-
19:2) “it would be best to understand the phrase in terms of covenant
relationship.”32
The first reference to rēaʻ / “neighbour” in the Old Testament is in
Genesis 11:3. As part of the etiological story of the tower of Babel or Babylon,
that explains “the origin of different nations and languages.” It involves every
person on earth: “and they said each to his rēaʻ …”33 A similar trend can be
found in the next reference to re`a in Genesis 38, in the story of Judah and Tamar.
Here Judah refers to Hirah (an Adullamite and a Canaanite) as a rēaʻ Friedman
recently came to the conclusion: “Those people who have been reading the verse
as meaning just-your-own-kind were misreading the immediate context of the
passage and completely missing its total context in the Bible.”34
Before focusing on the research conducted during last few decades one
can refer to early Jewish scholarship since the reception of the command to “love
your neighbour as yourself” within rabbinic scholarship reveal different modes
of interpretation that were continued in subsequent interpretation up to the past
century35: While Hillel reformulated the positive commandment in a negative
manner (“What is hateful to you, do not do to your comrade”)36, Akiba
considered the commandment to be “a central principle in the Torah” and this
29 James W. Watts, Leviticus 1-10. HCOT (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 133. 30 Ernst Jenni, Die hebraïschen Präpositionen III. Die Präposition Lamed. (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2000), 122. 31 Rogerson, “Leviticus 19”, 45. 32 Stephen K. Sherwood, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Berit Olam
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 77. Abraham Malamat, “Love your neighbour as
yourself: What it really means.” BAR 16/4 (1990), 50-51. Fortunately, the certainty of
the latter contribution did not inhibit further research – who can claim to know what
any text “really means”? 33 Friedman, Exodus, 209-210. 34 Friedman, Exodus, 212. 35 Levine, Leviticus, 130. 36 Levine, Leviticus, 130.
578 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
allows an interesting comparison with the early Christian communities as
reflected in the New Testament. Joel Kaminsky highlighted the fact that Rabbi
Akiba was convinced “that this commandment applies to all humanity and not
just one’s fellow Israelite.”37
One should be cautious not to jump to any anachronistic and superficial
conclusions about the meaning of the instruction to love the neighbour. Although
“loving” in the Old Testament had an affectionate side to it (Gen. 29:18 & 34:3),
it is also often used in close relationship to the covenantal relationship between
Israel and God38. Therefore, it is dangerous to misunderstand “love” in this
context primarily as romantic or even charitable, because “love” in the Ancient
Near East was “wholly community-related and for that reason also a ‘political’
term” that resonated with loyalty.39
Echoing the debate between Leo Baeck and Adolf von Harnack,
continued by Martin Buber, Andreas Schüle considered whether the Jewish and
Christian receptions of the command to love your neighbour can be used as
examples to juxtapose Judaism as a “Religion des Altruismus” and Christianity
as a “Religion des Egoismus”. According to Judaism the self is completed
through love and justice for the neighbour or other, while Christianity
presupposes the completeness of humankind and of the self that is complemented
by self-love.40 Schüle concludes that Judaism cannot be depicted as the religion
in which only the neighbour but not the enemy is loved, nor can Christianity be
explained with the generalisation that it is egocentric due to taking the self-love
as yardstick for the love of the other41. Thus, the emphasis is on the equivalence
between self and other with a qualified priority of the other in this asymmetrical
relationship42.
During the previous year Dorothea Erbele-Küster developed the
following thesis with regards to the interpretation of the love command43: the
37 Joel S. Kaminsky, “Loving One’s (Israelite) Neighbour: Election and
Commandment in Leviticus 19”, Interpretation 62/2 (2008), 132. 38 Kaminsky, “Loving”, 125. 39 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 272. 40 Andreas Schüle, “ ’Denn er ist wie Du’. Zu Übersetzung und Verständnis des
alttestamentliche Liebesgebot in Lev 19,18”, ZAW 113 (2001), 515-534. 41 Schüle, “Liebesgebot”, 534. 42 Richard A. Albee, “Asymmetrical Continuity of Love and Law beteen the Old and
New Testaments: Explicating the Implicit Side of a Hermeneutical Bridge, Leviticus
19:11-18”, JSOT 31/2 (2006), 166. 43 Dorothea Erbele-Küster, “Zur Anthropology der Ethik der (Liebes) Gebote,” in
Individualität und Selbstreflexion in den Literaturen des Alten Testaments. VWGTh 48
(eds. Andreas Wagner & Jürgen van Oorschot; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlaganstalt,
2017), 341-347. She is interested in the anthropology of the ethics of the love
commandments, especially in the Holiness Code of Leviticus and in Deuteronomy. This
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 579
love commandment implies the self and the ability to self-reflect. She does not
juxtapose love as an emotion and as a rational or political concept, because she
combines both by presupposing the embodiment of love (in agreement with
Judith Butler), with the heart, as the centre and or locus of decision making.
Leviticus 19 is considered by her to be a summary (“Kompendium”) of the
theology and ethics of the Holiness Code that is characterised by the combination
of cultic and ethical issues and that contain examples overlapping with elements
of the Decalogue, Covenant Code and Deuteronomic Code. Leviticus 19
contains an ethic of imitating God (imitatio Dei), more specifically, imitating the
acts of God that takes special care of the afflicted and the vulnerable members
of society – such as foreigners and resident aliens.
D “LOVING THE RESIDENT ALIEN” IN LEVITICUS 19:33-3444
There seems to be a tendency in Leviticus 19 to develop an issue mentioned in
the first half of the chapter in the second half of the chapter. For example, the
“issue of oppression appears in both v. 13 and v. 33” and refers to “problems that
develop from boundaries between neighbours of the same nation”; in a similar
way the love for the neighbour in v. 18 is developed by the love for the sojourner
or resident alien in v. 3445. This trend was also identified by other scholars like
Wenham when he observed that the “great command to love one’s neighbour as
oneself is specifically extended here” (vv. 33-34) “to cover the foreign residents”
by using “almost identical phraseology”46. In similar vein Nihan (2007:475)
pointed out that the “last three units of ch. 19, v. 32, 33-34 and 35-36 conclude
the second half of the chapter” and all three are “consistently built in parallel
with v.13-18” complementing this ethical series by an exegesis of the Ten
Commandments, the Covenant Code and the Deuteronomic Code47.
In verse 33 the command not to mistreat the “stranger” or “resident alien”
possibly alludes to “economic exploitation” since certain legal rights, like the
approach is predicated by the question whether humankind in the Hebrew Bible or Old
Testament experienced a sense of individuality that allowed persons to self-reflect and
make conscious decisions on how to act (“Die Frage ist also, wie das Verhältnis des
Einzelnen zur sozialen und religiösen Ordnung zu denken ist.”) 44 The term gēr has been translated differently: foreigner, immigrant, sojourner,
stranger etc – in this contribution I have opted for “resident alien” since it describes a
category that combines being part of a local society and having a history of coming
from somewhere else. 45 Jin-Myung Kim, Holiness and Perfection: A Canonical unfolding of Leviticus 19
(Bern: Peter Lang, 2011), 60. 46 Wenham, Leviticus, 273. 47 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 475 continues by arguing the importance of this literary
procedure that “mirrors the entire process of inner-biblical exegesis upon which the
legislation of ch 19 as a whole is built”.
580 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
owning of property, were denied48. The “proper treatment of the alien is a
common theme in the Old Testament that is often juxtaposed, as in this context,
to the reality that the Israelites themselves were once slaves in the land of Egypt
(19:36; Ex 22:21; 23:9; Deut 10:19; 24:17-18)”49.
Verse 34 links up with the previous verse, but now commands Israel “to
treat resident aliens with full justice”, similar to the “neighbour” or “native-born”
in verse 1850. The term gēr is usually translated as “resident alien” or
“sojourner”, referring to a foreigner who lives inside Israel or later Yehud.51
There is a difference of opinion on whether the concern for the foreigner
or resident alien only refers to those who live in Israel or whether all foreigners
outside Israel are also included. Some scholars like Jin-Myung Kim are of the
opinion that Leviticus 19 “does not refer to people who live outside of the land,
but to those who live inside the land” and therefore it is argued that “the
commandment of love for the sojourner in v.34 does not include all foreigners
and other nations, and is different from Jesus’ commandment of love for
humanity (Matt 5:44; 10:25-37)”52. Other scholars argue that the instructions to
love the neighbour and the resident alien or stranger must be interpreted within
the context of “the shared connection and mutual responsibility of human beings
living in a community of faith” and the specific mentioning of the resident alien
in 19:34 is a clear indication of its inclusion in the faith community and that a
“new dimension (is) now given to the old familial ethos”53.
The related term “’aezrāḥ” is translated as “native-born” who possesses
the land.54 In this regards Hieke (2014:754-756, 1147) develops the following
argument.55 Following on the caring for the elderly, the “resident alien” (ger) is
addressed in 19:33 and the “Einheimische” (’aezrāḥ) as someone born in Israel
according to 19:34. There is a surprising equivalence between gēr and ’aezrāḥ
in this development of the concept of the “resident alien”. God seems to provide
the example in Deut 10:18-19 on how to care for the foreigner or resident alien
by feeding and clothing – love for the resident alien is thus “weniger emotional,
48 Levine, Leviticus, 134. 49 Rooker, Leviticus, 263. 50 Sklar, Leviticus, 252. 51 According to Mark A. Awabdy, Immigrants and Innovative Law. Deuteronomy’s
Theological and Social Vision for the ‘ger’. FAT 2/67. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2014), 3 the noun gēr is used 92 times and the verb gur 83 times in the HB/OT and
generalising conclusions about the respective meanings are ill advised because they
“are not interchangeable in each context due to different subjects and locations of
residence.” 52 Kim, Holiness and Perfection, 60-61. 53 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 272. 54 Kim, Holiness and Perfection, 60 55 Hieke, Levitikus, 754-756 & 1147.
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 581
sondern eher praktisch ausgerichtet”56. The social-historical background to this
development of the love for the neighbour and the resident alien is the post-exilic
period when “Israel” existed in a “mixed society” (“Mischgesellschaft”). The
“intergrierte Fremde” becomes a characteristic of the self-understanding of
“Israel” that critiques an exclusive perception and advocates an inclusive
approach to being Israel.
Although the “wirkungsgeschichtliche Höhepunkt” of Leviticus 19 is the
command to love the neighbour in 19:18, it is crucial to note the “neighbour”
(“der Nächste”) is reinterpreted in 19:33-34 to include the “resident alien” or
“stranger”57.
It is therefore not surprising that the “resident alien” or “stranger” is often
referred to in the second half of the book of Leviticus. The instruction to take
care of the resident alien or stranger does not endanger the holiness of Israel,
since it becomes a prerequisite for its holiness! Similar to the discussion
concerned with the neighbour, Rogerson argues that the expression “as yourself”
should be translated as “who is like yourself” and therefore the “stranger shall
be like a native among you, and you shall treat him generously because he is like
yourself”.58
The reason why a resident alien or foreigner resided in Israel or Yehud
probably influenced the way in which the concept of a gēr was understood.
Bailey drew scholarly attention to the fact that: “Foreigners attached themselves
to Israel for a variety of reasons… according to 2 Chr 2:17, Solomon’s census
revealed that there were 153,600 ‘aliens’ in the country… mostly labourers with
marginal sustenance and thus linked with the poor and needy (Lev 19:10; 23:22;
25:6)”.59 The “bottom line” motivation for caring for the stranger is clear:
“Israel’s ancestors had once been aliens in the land of Egypt…” The memory of
their status, as well as awareness of God’s mercy in delivering them, became a
powerful motivation to ethical concern for those of similar status in subsequent
ages.60 Therefore, the memory of Israel as sojourners or resident aliens in Egypt
motivates the prohibition of oppression in v. 33 and the love for resident aliens
in v.34.
56 Hieke, Levitikus, 755. 57 According to Hieke, Levitikus, 1147 the “neighbour” seems to be anyone in need
of compassion and care: “Auch der Arbeits-migrant, der sich au seiner Notlage heraus
in Israel niedergelassen und um Lohn verdungen ist, ist ein Mensch “wie du” – für seine
Bedürftigkeit fordert das göttliche Gebot entsprechende Abhilfe.” 58 Rogerson, “Leviticus 19”, 45. 59 Bailey, Leviticus, 240 60 Bailey, Leviticus, 240-241. This observation by Bailey must be read in close
conjunction with the contrasting opinion argued by Albertz summarised in the
following paragraph.
582 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
When discussing the gēr in the Holiness Code one has to take into
consideration how Deuteronomy formulated instructions related to foreigners
and resident aliens. Rainer Albertz agrees with Dieter Vieweger that the social
status of the gerîm in the Holiness Code differs from its status presupposed by
the Deuteronomic Code61. According to Deuteronomy 16:9-15 “resident aliens”
were admitted to some of the pilgrimage feasts at the central sanctuary, but their
inclusion in cultic meals can be considered to be a form of charity because these
gerîm were so poor that they could not sacrifice themselves.
By contrast, priestly scribes responsible for the so-called Holiness Code
(Lev 17-27) in the fifth century BCE, “opened the central cult to wealthy resident
aliens of the Persian province Jehud, who were able to bring their own sacrifices,
even expensive holocaust offerings.”62 Being sensitive to the use of anachronistic
terminology Awabdy formulates certain caveats for using “immigrant” as
translation for gēr in Deuteronomy that are pertinent to the discussion of the
Holiness Code: “modern ethno-political connotations must not be superimposed
onto gēr in the OT” because the Old Testament is “not explicitly interested in
the birth, language and culture of the gēr, nor the length of time that a gēr
chooses to live in Israel or Judah…”63
To take one step back again: the instruction to love the resident alien has
significant implications for the interpretation of the instruction to love the
neighbour: recently Friedman again countered the claim that 19:18 is only
applicable to fellow Israelites or Jews by pointing out that there are 52
instructions in the Pentateuch that demand “just, equal treatment of aliens”.64
Friedman considers this concern for the stranger or resident alien as “an emphasis
unique to the Hebrew law codes” that is absent in other ancient Near Eastern law
codes.65
61 Rainer Albertz, “Are Foreign Rulers Allowed to Enter and Sacrifice in the
Jerusalem Temple?” In: Between Cooperation and Hostility. Multiple Identities in
Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers (eds R. Albertz & J. Wöhrle,
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &. Ruprecht, 2013), 120 and Dieter Vieweger, “Vom
‘Fremdling’ zum ‘Proselyt’: Zur sakralrechtlichen Definitionen des ger im späten 5.
Jahrhundert v.Chr” In: Von Gott reden: Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten
Testaments (ed, E Waschke, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 276-278. 62 The ritual instructions in Num 15:13-14 (second half of 5th Century) go a step
further than the Holiness Code (first half of the 5th Century) and were valid for each
’aezrāḥ (“native citizen”) and gēr residing in the province of Yehud who were now
permitted to sacrifice. 63 Awabdy, Immigrants, 4-5. 64 Friedman, Exodus, 200-203. A few examples of the instructions related to the
resident aliens: Ex 12:49; 22:30; 23:9; Lev 19:33-34; Deut 10:19; 23:8; 24:17-18. 65 Friedman, Exodus, 203 makes the remarkable suggestion that the Levites were the
only component of what eventually become known as ‘Israel’ to sojourn in Egypt as
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 583
I agree with Esias Meyer that different views of the gerîm can be found
in the Holiness Code, but more in the sense of the co-existence of views than a
linear progression from one view to another. The gēr was not only perceived as
a vulnerable object of charity, but also as an economically and socially upwardly
mobile resident alien who had to obey the instructions or prohibitions applicable
to Israel (early Jewish communities). Leviticus 19: 33-34 introduced a third view
that love (as care and loyalty) was due to resident aliens as a prerequisite to being
holy.66
E REDEFINING ‘HOLINESS’ IN LEVITICUS 19 AND THE
HOLINESS CODE
Several scholars, such as Gerstenberger, focus on the post-exilic period to make
sense of how a changing priestly understanding of the concept of holiness
impacted on how the instructions to love the neighbour and the resident aliens
were interpreted and appropriated67. It is clear that “holiness” was now perceived
to be prescriptive for both cultic and everyday life. Furthermore, the double
reference that “holy” applies to both God and the addressees is significant, and
although it is only explicitly mentioned in the introductory superscript, it is
implied throughout the whole of the chapter.
The demand to be “holy” not only impacted on the way in which cultic
rituals were performed, because the audience were required to become and
remain “holy” by being obedient to the divine commandments and submitting to
the will of God – commandments that include the injunction to love the
neighbour and the resident alien. According to Gerstenberger holiness “is a
sphere of power and purity unique to God” and therefore his “house” (usually
the temple in Jerusalem) forms part of the holy sphere resulting from his holy
presence and access to the holy space required a holy life-style.68 Leviticus 19 is
focused on the establishment and maintenance of this holy lifestyle that would
resonate with the holiness of God and the rituals discussed in the first half of the
book of Leviticus. It is also important to take note how the individual Israelite is
addressed in chapter 1969: once as a “brother” (ʼāḥ), but three times as a
“neighbour” or “fellow Israelite” (rēaʻ) and as a “fellow in faith” (ʻāmît).
‘aliens’. This brings him to the following contentious conclusion: “The experience of
being aliens, of being oppressed, apparently led Israel’s clergy and teachers, the Levite
priests, to say: ‘You must never do that.’” 66 Esias E Meyer, “Liefde vir die Vreemdeling in Levitikus 19: uiteenlopende
sienings oor vreemdelinge in die Heiligheidswetgewing” LitNet Akademies 12/3
(2015): 489-490. 67 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 281-286. 68 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 282. 69 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 283 – 286 came to the conclusion that the entire Israelite
or early Jewish community, including the most vulnerable elements thereof, are now
584 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
It is interesting how different definitions of what “holiness” in Leviticus
19 entails, persist to co-exist: Milgrom goes against the established definition of
qdš as “separation” (from the supposed root meaning “to cut”) and develops a
more positive sense of holiness by suggesting “that separation presupposes
rather than makes holiness”.70 Bailey persists with the traditional understanding
of holiness that it meant “in part, to be distinct, separate, and thus not accept
certain aspects of Canaanite culture”.71 But according to Nihan Leviticus 19
commences with an “exhortation to the Israelites to lead a holy life, that is, in
conformity with Yahweh’s holiness” and this is concluded in verse 37 with a
final exhortation to keep all God’s statutes (hukôt) and ordinances (mishpatîm)
– establishing a clear link between obedience to the love commands and the
keeping of all legal prescriptions.72
One must also take note that there seems to be a strong structural emphasis
on what “holy practices” entail (Lev. 19), since it is framed by what “unholy
practices” one must avoid (Lev. 18 & 20). Holiness is defined both negatively
and positively: to avoid “unholy practices”, as well as being holy characterised
by “the practice of righteousness”73.
The importance of “holiness” in Leviticus 19 becomes clear when one
realises that the refrain, “I am YHWH” or ‘I am YHWH your God” abbreviates
the command “you shall be holy, for I YHWH your God am holy”. In the Old
Testament “holiness” is often related to “separation” because that which is
considered holy “is separated from common use and devoted to the service of
God”.74 Rogerson argues further that “this idea of holiness as separation is
challenged and enlarged in Leviticus 19” due to several examples in chapter 19
of “social justice and respect for the natural world”… Leviticus 19 demonstrates
that “holiness” is not focussed on “religious matters” only but “embraces…
aspects of daily life”.75
defined in terms of their God and not in terms of land possession, nationality or the
monarchy. 70 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus. A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
2004), 219-220 and Mark W. Elliot, Engaging Leviticus: Reading Leviticus
theologically and with its past interpreters (Eugene: Cascade, 2012), 199. 71 Bailey, Leviticus, 227. 72 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 456 argues for a causal relationship between Israel’s
holiness and obedience to the statutes and ordinances of the Lord that are “explicitly
defined in the first exhortation of ch. 20 v.7-8, where these two notions are taken up
and developed.” 73 Sklar, Leviticus, 241. Hans-Peter Mathys, Liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst.
OBO 71. (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1990), 173 concluded in similar vein that the
command to love the neighbour must be seen in close connection with righteousness. 74 Rogerson, “Leviticus 19”, 53. 75 Rogerson, “Leviticus 19”, 53-54.
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 585
Some recent Leviticus scholarship recognises the profound impact that a
changed understanding of holiness had on the love commandments. Hieke refers
to the change in the understanding of the concept of holiness as a
“Quantensprung”76: in the first 16 chapters “holiness” is confined to cultic
(especially sacrificial) rituals and the participation of priests and Levites.
However, from chapter 17 onwards holiness becomes part of social interaction
in general – daily life now had to comply with being holy.77
One can appreciate the fact that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem
in 586 B.C.E. and the subsequent deportation into exile of a significant number of
Judeans inevitably had a major impact on the understanding of holiness. Cultic
purity and the opportunity to sacrifice outside the Jerusalem temple and beyond
the “Holy land” became a challenge. The Holiness Code in the second half of
Leviticus (17-26) is “permeated by paranesis referring back to the identity of
YHWH and the relationship it established with Israel…’78. Being “holy” was
now determined by the “holy” being of YHWH. Israel and the early Jewish
communities in Yehud and the Diaspora now became holy through obedience to
the laws and instructions of YHWH, not only to perform cultic rituals like
sacrifices, but also to change their social behaviour, not only loving the
neighbour but also the foreigner and the resident alien.
Holiness is now possible not only through separation but by a new form
of inclusion – by imitating God new inclusive social relations became possible.
However, the imitation of God can hardly be perceived as the centre of all Old
Testament ethics because certain aspects of God cannot be imitated, some should
not be imitated, but some acts of God (such as loving the neighbour and the
resident alien) ought to set an example.79 By imitating acts of God and by
orientating ourselves to the vulnerable “other” something authentic of being
created in the image of the holy God can be manifested – the “imitatio Dei”
enabling the “imago Dei” through ethically defined holiness!
76 Hieke, Levitikus, 703 summarises: “so wird jetzt der Gedanke verfolgt, diese
Heiligkeit in den Alltag der Israelieten hineinzutragen.” 77 Hieke, Levitikus, 1146-1147: “’Heilig sein’ heist auch, so ist es schon angeklungen,
‘anders sein.’” 78 Paavo N.Tucker, The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus. FAT 2/98.
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 188. 79 There is a potential dark side to the presupposition to imitate God. Esias Meyer,
“The Dark Side of the Imitatio Dei. Why imitating the God of the Holiness Code is not
always a good thing” OTE 22/2 (2009), 380 pointed out that there are several images
of God in the Holiness Code that should hardly be imitated: for example, YHWH is
described as a landowner and slave owner in Leviticus 25: 23, 42 and 55.
586 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
F CONCLUSION
Despite the anachronistic ring to the term ‘catechism’, one can appreciate
Gerstenberger’s depiction of chapter 19 as “a broad if not comprehensive
catechism of religious life-rules for the early Jewish community”.80 This
collection of life-rules operationalised the ritual prescriptions of the first 16
chapters of the book and provided a distinctive ethical cutting edge to
programmatic refrain “to be holy” in chapters 17-26.
The love for the neighbour and the resident alien contributes to the
redefinition of “holiness” in Leviticus that is not the result of ritual practices, but
the relational bedrock or cause of ritual and sacrifice. In agreement with Hans-
Peter Mathys’s conclusion that Leviticus 19:18 makes it clear that “Gerechtigkeit
und Liebe die beiden Grundforderungen der alttestamentlichen Ethik sind” – one
should emphasise that it is not only “love” as a noun, but “love” in action81.
Leviticus 19 is a remarkable example of inner-biblical exegesis that
reinterprets several existing laws (i.e. Covenant Code, Deuteronomic Code etc.).
It also redefined the requirements of a holy life in the time after the Babylonian
Exile82. This reinterpretation of existing instructions can probably be taken as an
indication of “the observance of the entire Torah…”83. Furthermore, the clear
connection between ethical behaviour and holiness is “a complete innovation” in
comparison with some of the other older collections of legal instructions in the
Old Testament.84
Whereas Rudolph Otto defined holiness as the numinous and awe-
inspiring characteristic of God that no human could achieve or comprehend85,
Mircea Eliade perceived divine holiness to be present in the world around us and
accessible to humans – space (temples, sanctuaries etc.), time (Sabbath, Passover
etc.) and people (priests, Levites) can become “holy”86. This study of Leviticus
19 argues that the concept of holiness presupposed in the first half of Leviticus
presuppose a type of holiness according to which God appointed certain humans
80 Gerstenberger, Leviticus, 265. The reference to an “early Jewish community”
implies a postexilic dating for Leviticus 19 as a type of “catechism” that attempted to
combine the interests of diverging Jewish groups in Yehud and the diaspora. 81 Mathys, Liebe, 172. 82 Lev 19 has parallels in several other legal codes: it is a commentary on several of
the Ten Commandments; there are also clear references to Ex 20-23, Deut 12-26 and
Lev 1-16. 83 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 466-467. 84 Nihan, Priestly Torah, 475 described how holiness entailed the rejection of
“unclean alimentary customs” (Ex 22:30; Deut 14:21) and non-Yahwistic rituals (Deut
7:5-6; 14:2). 85 Rudolph Otto, The Idea of the Holy. (London: Oxford University Press, 1923). 86 Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. (San Diego:
Harcourt, 1959).
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 587
to be considered holy (priests and Levites) and that the second half of Leviticus
argues that holiness can be redefined and achieved through obedience to divine
instructions (loving the neighbour and the resident alien)87.
Against this background I conclude in conjunction with Naomi Koltun-
Fromm that “holiness” constitutes a central category for self-definition in the
formation of postexilic identity88. During this process of identity formation, the
Hebrew Bible or Old Testament reflects diverging concepts of holiness: one
group saw holiness as “ascribed” (i.e. inherited through genealogy, like the
priests and Levites in Lev. 1-15); and another group perceived holiness as
“achieved” (though ritualised behaviour and obedience to commandments to
love the neighbour and the resident alien in Lev. 19). Obedience to the
instructions to love the neighbour and the resident alien made it possible for “all
Israel” and beyond to become holy without the mediation of priests. However,
Leviticus 19 does not make priests or the cult redundant, but the inclusive
instructions to love both the neighbour and the resident alien made it possible for
those living in the diaspora, who did not have access to priests and the cult, to
become holy – establishing a consistent interconnectedness between cult and
ethics.
Closely related to the above, one should take note of Eberhard Jüngel’s
definition of love as “an event where even the highest degree of self-reference
dissolves into an even higher self-giving”.89 Against this background I also
concur with Andreas Schüle that loving the neighbour and the stranger involves
special kinds of creative acts that open up new and transformative spaces and
relations in all regions of social life, usually divided by race, economic class,
gender orientation and religion90. Holiness is thus achieved not through
87 At this point one should also give credit to Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of
Priests. Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 10 who proposed that biblical authors had to negotiate the
tension between the theological perception that Israel was holy by birth (ancestry) and
an Israel (corporate and individually) that was holy by piety (merit through obedience).
She also suggests that this tension undergirds ancient postbiblical Judaism. 88 Naomi Koltun-Fromm, Hermeneutics and Holiness. Ancient Jewish and Christian
Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community (New York: Oxford University Press,
2010), 4-6, 31-34, 239. This study of Leviticus 19 is interested in how definitions of
holiness allowed and disallowed access to God – these definitions also had profound
implications for the exercise of power in postexilic Jewish communities of faith. 89 Eberhard Jüngel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt: Zur Begründing der Theologie des
Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus. (Tübingen: Mohr &
Siebeck,1986), 435: love as “ein Ereignis einer inmitten noch so grosser
Selbstbezüglichkeit immer noch grössen Selbstlosigkeit.” 90 Andreas Schüle, “Sharing and Loving. Love, Law and the Ethics of Cultural
Memory in the Pentateuch”. In: Andreas Schüle, Theology from the Beginning. FAT
2/113 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 321.
588 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
exclusion or separation but by an inclusive attitude, thereby including those who
are different from you.91
In the final analysis it boils down to the question: How do we live “holy”
lives that do not separate but include the most vulnerable, accepting the challenge
that taking care of the vulnerable “other” will allow us to be obedient to the
instructions to love our neighbours and resident aliens?92
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Albee, Richard A. “Asymmetrical Continuity of Love and Law between the Old and
New Testaments: Explicating the Implicit Side of a Hermeneutical Bridge,
Leviticus 19:11-18.” JSOT 31/2 (2006):147-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0309089206073098
Albertz, Rainer. “Are Foreign Rulers Allowed to Enter and Sacrifice in the Jerusalem
Temple?” Pages 115-123. In: Between Cooperation and Hostility. Multiple
Identities in Ancient Judaism and the Interaction with Foreign Powers. Edited by
R. Albertz & J. Wöhrle, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &. Ruprecht, 2013. https://
doi.org/10.13109/9783666550515.115
Bailey, Lloyd R. Leviticus – Numbers. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentaries. Macon:
Smyth & Helwys, 2005.
Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament 2 ed.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. San Diego:
Harcourt, 1959.
Elliot, Mark W. Engaging Leviticus: Reading Leviticus Theologically and with its past
Interpreters. Eugene: Cascade, 2012.
Erbele-Küster, Dorothea. “Zur Anthropology der Ethik der (Liebes) Gebote.” Pages
341-354 in Individualität und Selbstreflexion in den Literaturen des Alten
Testaments.
VWGTh 48. Edited by Andreas Wagner & Jürgen van Oorschot ; Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlaganstalt, 2017.
Friedman, Richard E. Exodus. New York: HarperOne, 2017.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus. A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster /
John Knox, 1996.
91 Future research on this chapter might be well advised to go beyond the Old
Testament discussions of the topic and be informed by related research in theological
and philosophical ethics. For example: the philosophical-ethics of Emmanuel Levinas,
Otherwise than Being. (Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1974) has the potential to contribute to the
multidisciplinary interface between exegesis and ethics that takes as point of departure
not the “responsibility of being” but the “responsibility of the other”. There is no
symmetry between the “self” and the “other”, but rather asymmetry that is rooted in the
priority of the other: The self is itself when and only when it is fore-the-other. 92 A question that rings true not only in Africa, but also in many parts of America,
Asia and Europe where communities of faith are all the more confronted by the
challenge and the responsibility of taking care of the rapidly growing migrant
“vulnerable other”.
Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590 589
Hieke, Thomas. Levitikus 17-26. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2014.
Himmelfarb, Martha. A Kingdom of Priests. Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.
Jagersma, Henk. Leviticus 19. Assen: van Gorcum, 1972. Jenni, Ernst. Die hebraïschen
Präpositionen III. Die Präposition Lamed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000.
Jüngel, Eberhard. Gott als Geheimnis der Welt: Zur Begründing der Theologie des
Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus. Tübingen: Mohr &
Siebeck,1986.
Kaminsky, Joel S. “Loving One’s (Israelite) Neighbour: Election and Commandment
in Leviticus 19”, Interpretation 62/2 (2008): 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1177
/002096430806200202
Kim, Jin-Myung. Holiness and Perfection: A Canonical unfolding of Leviticus 19.
Bern: Peter Lang, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0186-7
Klostermann, August. “Beiträge zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuchs.”
Zeitschrift für die gesammte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 38/3 (1877): 401-
455.
Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Koltrun-Fromm, Naomi. Hermeneutics and Holiness. Ancient Jewish and Christian
Notions of Sexuality and Religious Community. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2010.
Levinas, Emmanuel. E. Otherwise than Being. Dordrecht: Nijhoff, 1974.
Levine, Baruch. Leviticus. JPS. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
Malamat, Abraham. “Love your neighbour as yourself: What it really means.” BAR
16/4 (1990): 50-51.
Mathys, Hans-Peter. Liebe deinen Nächsten wie dich selbst. Untersuchungen zum
alttestamentliche Gebot der Nächsteliebe (Lev 19, 18). OBO 71. Freiburg:
Universitätsverlag, 1990.
Meyer, Esias E. “The Dark Side of the Imitatio Dei. Why imitating the God of the
Holiness Code is not always a good thing”. OTE 22/2 (2009): 273-283.
_________. “Liefde vir die Vreemdeling in Leviticus 19: uiteenlopende sienings oor
vreemdelinge in die Heiligheidswetgewing”. LitNet Akademies 12/3 (2015): 487-
516.
_________. “The Reinterpretation of the Decalogue in Leviticus 19 and the Centrality
of the Cult”, SJOT 30/2 (2016): 198-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09018328.
2016.1226048
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17 – 22. AB. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
_________. Leviticus. A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2004.
Nihan, Christophe. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch. FAT II/25. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-151123-3
Noth, Martin. Das dritte Buch Mose: Leviticus. ATD. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966.
Otto, Rudolph. The Idea of the Holy. London: Oxford University Press, 1923.
Rogerson, John W. “Leviticus 19 and the meaning of Holiness.” Pages 43-55 in
Leviticus in Practice. Edited by John W. Rogerson, Dorset: Deo Publishing, 2014.
Rooker, Michael F. Leviticus, NAC 3A. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2000.
590 Bosman, “Ethical Redefinition of Holiness,” OTE 31/3 (2018): 571-590
Ruwe, Andreas. “Heiligkeitsgesetz” und “Priesterschrift”. Literaturgeschichtliche
und rechtssystematische Untersuchungen zu Leviticus 17,1–26,2. FAT 26.
Tübingen: Mohr & Siebeck, 1999.
Schüle, Andreas. “’Denn er ist wie Du’. Zu Übersetzung und Verständnis des
alttestamentliche Liebesgebot in Lev 19,18”, ZAW 113 (2001):515-534.
Schüle, Andreas. “Sharing and Loving. Love, Law and the Ethics of Cultural Memory
in the Pentateuch”. Pages 309-321. In: Andreas Schüle, Theology from the
Beginning. FAT 2/113 Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
Sherwood, Stephen K. Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Berit Olam. Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 2002.
Sklar, Jay. Leviticus. TOTC 3. Downer’s Grove: IVP Academic, 2014.
Tucker, Paavo N. The Holiness Composition in the Book of Exodus. FAT 2/98.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1628/978-3-16-155547-3
Vieweger, Dieter. “Vom ‘Fremdling’ zum ‘Proselyt’: Zur sakralrechtlichen
Definitionen des ger im späten 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr” Pages 271-284. In: Von
Gott reden: Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. Edited
by E. Waschke, Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995.
Watts, James W. Leviticus 1-10. HCOT. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Prof Hendrik Bosman, Department of Old and New Testament, University of
Stellenbosch. Email: [email protected]. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
2439-8119.